D&D 5E Player's Handbook Official Errata

There's a new printing of the 5E Player's Handbook a'coming. It "corrects some typos while clarifying a few rules." But for those of us who already have a 5E Player's Handbook, there's a one-page PDF of official errata now available. It contains 51 items, covering classes, equipment, feats, spells, and more.

Download it right here! The errata has already been incorporated into the free Basic Rules.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

...

This:

"There's a ton of variety in D&D encounters, more than you are apparently giving credit for..."

Was in response to this (from you): " so either you are used to fighting e.g. two ancient dragons at a time or you are fighting large mobs instead of tough creatures"

a classic false dichotomy. Which, no offense, didn't add anything to the debate.

None taken. I could have sworn "e.g." meant "exempli gratia" though, in which case if it is a false dichotomy "there are 2+ "lieutenant" type enemies who aren't conveniently in fireball formation (or your friends are in the way)" is another instantiation of that same example instead of a third scenario. I still honestly can't think of a third scenario where Twinning Spell would be useful besides "two tough creatures" or "large mobs", so I still don't see the falseness of the dichotomy.

 

[famousringo]

Is everyone supposed to be able to do exactly as much damage as everyone else? I thought spellcasters bump was versatility?

Versatility is something that happens to other casters. Apart from the unofficial Unearthed Arcana subclasses, sorcerers are the least versatile in the game. Hence why players expect the class to make up for it with power.

Immolate is a great spell for a Blaster Sorceror, you can still twin spell it for multiple targets, heighten it instead for single targets, boost its duration for more damage over time, Maximize Damage, or use flexible casting to cast it more often, or cast elemental bane on it for to squeeze out more damage over time.

Oh wow, really not recommended. Heighten only applies to the first save, so it's best used with save or suck spells that only have an initial save, like Suggestion or Polymorph.

You can Twin it, but it costs a horrible amount of sorcery points to accomplish what a fireball would probably accomplish better with a lower slot.

Doubling duration is probably a total waste, since it's unlikely that:

1. The combat will last a minute.
2. The target will survive a minute.
3. The target will fail ten saving throws on the spell.

Also, 3d6 damage is a godawful waste of precious concentration that could be maintaining an awesome buff or valuable control spell.

And finally, sorcerers cannot cast Elemental Bane. If they could, they couldn't concentrate on both it and Immolation at the same time.

Sorry, even metamagic can't stop Immolation from being a crummy spell.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Versatility is something that happens to other casters. Apart from the unofficial Unearthed Arcana subclasses, sorcerers are the least versatile in the game. Hence why players expect the class to make up for it with power.

They're on par with non-Tome Pact warlocks.

An aside: I actually really like paladin/wild sorc as a combo. Paladin adds some much-needed versatility and spells to Twin (twin Shield of Faith, twin Sanctuary, etc.). Wild Sorc adds Blur/Blink/Shield for durability, spell slots for smiting, ability to Fireball, and Bend Luck and advantage on saves which stacks with paladin aura for some truly crazy levels of protection--and you can even help the druid do Planar Binding more efficiently! I don't think I would ever in a million years play a single-class Sorcerer, but Sorcerer is a good mix-in for paladins.

 

[famousringo]

They're on par with non-Tome Pact warlocks.

An aside: I actually really like paladin/wild sorc as a combo. Paladin adds some much-needed versatility and spells to Twin (twin Shield of Faith, twin Sanctuary, etc.). Wild Sorc adds Blur/Blink/Shield for durability, spell slots for smiting, ability to Fireball, and Bend Luck and advantage on saves which stacks with paladin aura for some truly crazy levels of protection--and you can even help the druid do Planar Binding more efficiently! I don't think I would ever in a million years play a single-class Sorcerer, but Sorcerer is a good mix-in for paladins.

All warlocks are more versatile than sorcerers. The tome for rituals, the blade for superior martial prowess, and the chain for powerful and stealthy familiars. All three warlocks can add spammable at-will Invocations.

Edit: Best part of pally/wild combo is the save bonus you give your allies to resist your accidental fireballs.

Yeah, I've concluded sorcerer is pretty much meant for multiclass. You almost have to to cover the class weaknesses if you're going deep sorcerer, and metamagic synergizes well with just about any class with spells. Even Eldritch Knights.

 

[steeldragons]

I still honestly can't think of a third scenario where Twinning Spell would be useful besides "two tough creatures" or "large mobs", so I still don't see the falseness of the dichotomy.

Dont' have my books/spell list in front of me at the moment, but I'll give it a go...

There are 2 guards guarding the gate/vault/prisoner. Twin Charm Person. Twin Suggestion.

Two water/fire elementals (or really 2 of anything attacking the party). Twin Ray of Frost. Twin Fire Bolt. Twin Ray of Sickness (is that on the Sorc's list?).

Want to freeze areas of water to walk across or light two censers/torches/campfires (or set any two fires in two different places, e.g. pyromanics/arson) at once. Twin Ray of Frost/Fire Bolt, respectively.

Two incoming attacks (or any variety). Twin Shield. Twin Blur.

Sneaking into/out of town/gala/prison/dragon's lair/eloping with the farmer's daughter. Twin Invisibility.

I'm sure there are others I'm just not thinking of...but seems to be quite still useful...and scenarios need not include tough or numerous foes.

 

[Eric V]

None taken. I could have sworn "e.g." meant "exempli gratia" though, in which case if it is a false dichotomy "there are 2+ "lieutenant" type enemies who aren't conveniently in fireball formation (or your friends are in the way)" is another instantiation of that same example instead of a third scenario. I still honestly can't think of a third scenario where Twinning Spell would be useful besides "two tough creatures" or "large mobs", so I still don't see the falseness of the dichotomy.

Well, I don't know what to tell you: we are not usually fighting the only options you gave in your argument: a) 2 solo type creatures ("two ancient dragons") or b) large mobs.

We more often encounter: c) Something other than the only 2 choices you presented as your argument. As such, I feel you engaged in a false dichotomy ("Well, it's either this or that!") fallacy.

 

[Delandel]

@gyor

The only thing they're good at now is casting Fireballs if you want to be a glass cannon. That's about it. Melf's Minute Meteors too, but that's the same spell level.

It's not just the Twin change, but (potentially) the Scorching Ray change too. Here's hoping each ray still gets +CHA, not just a single one. Otherwise yeah it really sucks.

@Hemlock

Twinning Scorching Ray II costs 2 sorcery points to get 6 rays, 3 per target. That's as many rays as a 5th level version, which costs 7 sorcery points to make and is only available at 9th level. It's highly efficient in that regard, better than Quicken Fire Bolt for the same amount of sorcery points (assuming you want to hit 2 targets).

Multiclassing Paladin/Sorc is a decent combo. I'd only consider it after 11 levels of Paladin personally. 5th is extra attack, 6th is aura of protection, 9th you get haste (if vengeance), and 11th is improved divine smite. After that maybe.

EDIT: Actually I was thinking about it more and if Stormborn Sorcerer is allowed then some amount of Paladin / SB could be very fun. Thunderous Smite is a level 1 spell and procs the SB's Heart of the Storm, which has the major downside of getting close in melee nullified since you're a paladin anyway. Looks like a sweet combo.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Anyone notice how much more powerful Magic Iniate got as a feat. I heard a rules interruptation rescently that if the 1st level spell chosen belonged to a class you have the spell was basically an extra spell known, but the errata does not have that restriction. If your playing a single class wizard for example and you take Magic Iniatate cleric and choose healing word, you can now cast it using any of your wizard slots.

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but: this clarification to Magic Initiate is kind of a big deal, if it turns out to work as described above.

Magic Initiate says "You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level."

The Errata clarifies that the restriction "Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again" is limited "only to the casting granted by the feat."

So how does this all interact with spellcasting? It's worth pointing out that the feat does NOT grant a Spell Slot, 1st level or otherwise.

The rules for Multiclassed spellcasters are irrelevant, here. Magic Initiate does not grant a level in a spellcasting class.

So, we only have the rules from each spellcasting class's "Spellcasting" description. And the rules in Chapter 10: Spellcasting.

This passage from Chapter 10, "Known and Prepared Spells" is interesting:

"Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item. Members o f a few classes, including bards and sorcerers, have a limited list of spells they know that are always fixed in mind. The same thing is true of many magic-using monsters. Other spellcasters, such as clerics and wizards, undergo a process of preparing spells. This process varies for different classes, as detailed in their descriptions. In every case, the number of spells a caster can have fixed in mind at any given time depends on the
character’s level."

The Magic Initiate feat says you "learn" the spell. That sure sounds like "always fixed in mind." Perhaps it should be treated that same way.

The Wizard's "Preparing and Casting Spells" description says "The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot o f the spell’s level or higher."

The crux, then, is if the spell you "learn" from Magic Initiate counts as one of "your spells." I'd rule YES. So, you can use a Wizard slot to cast it.

However, that section furthermore says "You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so. choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell)."

Magic Initiate effectively bypasses the normal limit on Prepared Spells or Spells Known. It bypasses one of the main restrictions on spellcasting classes. The feat should probably be renamed "Magical Talent."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Amen. People forget that this isn't a spammable thing. Sorcerers give up getting their "extra" spell slots to use metamagic. Sorcerers don't get sorcery points back on a short rest, only long. Wizards and Warlocks get to reclaim spell slots on a short rest. Using metamagic vs creating extra spell slots is a trade-off. Now it is very unbalanced. The usefulness of sorcery points took a huge hit, especially at early levels. The key thing is that people forget that we can really only do this stuff reliably once or twice per long rest. LONG REST. Not short rest like wizards/warlocks and just about every other class's abilities. Wizards get ritual casting so they don't burn spell slots outside of combat, get spell recovery on a short rest, and each of the tradition schools gives them some pretty good abilities at 2nd and 6th level. Look @ Fighters' extra attack at level 5, or Rogue's sneak attack at that same level - 3d6 extra damage PER TURN. Sorcs were supposed to be flexible casters who could occasionally open up and save their party from a sticky situation. Now, they're Wizard wannabes.

Not exactly. It's a daily feature for wizards; they simply use it on a short rest--no more than 1/day.

Would anyone like to explain what adding the word "clearly" does for the hiding rules? Does this mean you don't need to be heavily obscured? If so, what good is Mask of the Wild? At any rate, I feel I'm missing the point of this bit of the errata.

There was a lot of argument claiming that if you had line of sight to a creature RAW made it impossible for it to hide from you. It had to be completely impossible for you to see it (ie, behind a wall from which you are not peeking out or invisible) in order for it to even attempt to hide. This clarifies that that is not the case, and it's the DM's call whether conditions are sufficient to hide. So this clarification is kinda a big deal.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, which is exactly what I said. That particular *casting* of the spell only targets one creature. But the *spell* itself does not target only one creature.


Nope, the requirement is it targets "only one creature". Does it target more than one? nope. There is no requirement that 'one creature' is the only thing it targets.

It is the difference between "targets only one creature" and "only targets one creature"
If there was a Windex Spell that did 2D10 damage to one creature, and cleaned every window in 60'.... you could twin that
It targets a creature.. it targets only one creature.
So....
It targets only one creature
It targets all windows
It fits the requirement just fine....

Same with firebolt
Targets only one creature
Targets one object

not a problem.

The intent was that spells which can target multiples can't be twinned. My read of it was that way from the get go, and I've seen that I'm correct in my read because it's been clarified again, and again, and again, over the last 5-6 months. And now, it's in the errata (and new printings of the PHB) with it being clear that if the spell can target multiple critters the spell cannot be twinned.

Quit your whinging, and either house rule it, or accept it. It's NOT a change, it's just your group misread it, and that's why they are errataing it.